User talk:MasterKnight
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Damage and cost effectiveness of towers page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Chimto (Talk) 21:26, December 18, 2012 Re: Hi, I have solid evidence against MisterWendell which has been reviewed by a staff member. The ban will not be lifted. However, I will be willing to review the ban in a few months to see if I can shorten it. [[User:Cpl.Bohater|'Pierogi']] CC talk Local talk 11:27, March 11, 2013 (UTC) Tower Damage and Efficiency Edit Hi there, I wrote the original Tower DPS page. If someone designs a page, why would you go into edit in changes that are ultimately stylistic changes? I will proceed through the changes here. I think by designing the page myself, I have earned the right to a certain stylistic license that permits me to include the information as I see it. Rewording it is one thing, rewriting it, as you have done, is quite different. For example, you erased useful quantitative information regarding the critical hit percent chance for Ranger Hideouts and replaced it with ambiguous "high dps." I can understand why it might seem readable, but this is a page which only die-hard interested people will actually take the time to read; they will appreciate more exact information. I ran tests that I did not include the data for in the page--I allowed each tower to fire around 50 times. Feel free to run them yourself, but please don't add your opinion to a page. *Mage towers should be built to tier 2 at least. It will allow them to manage working tempo, and their DPS is cost-effective as well. This completely ruins the spirit of the page, as it rephrases what was originally a comparison between tower ranks to your recommendation without citing the data. Again, you remove meaningful analysis with ambiguous phrases not backed by numbers: a "working tempo?" What does that even mean? "Their DPS is cost-effective as well?" Relative to what? You completely removed the spirit of the remark, which was a comparison between tower ranks. The sentence would be better off deleted the way you wrote it. The next change removes one of the most important conclusions of the tables, that mage tower upgrades have the greatest gold value of all the towers, and replaces it with a much wordier paragraph filled with more ambiguity. Admittedly, the clicking of sheeps was not mentioned in mine. You subsequently remove another important phrase that allows us to compare artillery towers vs. single target towers and replace it with a well-known fact that artillery suffers 50% reduction by physical armor. I could see the inclusion of your paragraph, but not at the expense of what is much more useful information given it is not available elsewhere. This continues on and on with almost every change. You either remove useful conclusions and replace them with ambiguous phrases that really have no meaning, or you seemingly replace my words with your own opinion--for example, with the militia attack speed, I arguably presumed too much suggesting that it was a bug and could have understood an edit removing the proposal that it was a bug, but you very questionably replaced this assumption with an equally uninformed statement that it was "likely intended by the developers." You can presume that just as well as I can at least suggest the possibility it is a bug. IF you are going to rewrite something, at least don't have the gall to rewrite it with your own opinion; replace it instead with something worthwhile, like a more concise and readable presentation of the information. Much of what you edited have been arbitrary changes that actually came at the expense of the page itself. The switch to DPS per 100 gold is absolutely arbitrary and is again a needless abuse of your freedom to edit pages to mold them according to your opinion of how they should look. You even removed the cost efficiency with the star tower cost reduction upgrades, a ''very ''important distinction to have, and you added in some weird equation for the sorcerer tower that you neglected to even explain. It's just a shoddy edit, with pointless changes and harms the integrity of the page. I have now explained why I reverted the changes. I welcome edits to make my writing more readable, but please don't compromise the information that is already there, or make arbitrary changes based on your opinion. I see many pages here that I would personally write differently, but I credit some respect to the original author to leave it as because I don't presume my opinion for how it should look to hold more weight than the original author's. I would only reword it if there is an issue with readability, doing my best to preserve the original writing to ensure consistency with the rest of the page and avoid unintentionally altering a statement that I may have misunderstood. Some conservativeness is due when editing or you run the risk of losing more information than you add. Thank you for your understanding. Blighter magic resistance I don't think that developers' statement is correct anymore, because Blood Gnolls obviously have -50% magic resistance. Although, 72.5% is obviously between 0 and 100 as well. As for the Burst Arrow damage, it's 240, not 230 (IIRC, can't check right now), and the damage was dealt before the Blighter got hit by any arrow at all. - Arya Snow (talk) 22:21, June 1, 2015 (UTC)